The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior registration for the import of Ethephon under the Insecticides Act and the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish any exemption under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pridarshi Manish (through video conferencing) along with Sri Anil Kumar holding brief of Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the Revenue. None other has appeared in these proceedings.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for various relief described in the Relief clause. However, at present Sri Pridarshi Manish has pressed the prayer nos. B, D, E and F. They read as below:

“B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to release the goods detained at the factory premises of the Petitioner Company; and / or

D. Issue a writ of declaration to declare the search conducted at the factory premises, office premises as well as the residential premises of one of the directors of the Petitioner Company is illegal; and/or

E. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the Respondent to release the goods which has been illegally detained by panchanama dated 08.07.2021 (Annexure P38); and/or

F. Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari to set-aside the seizure memorandum dated 23.07.2021; and/or”

3. The petitioner is a duly incorporated company. It is engaged in the business of import, manufacture, and trading in Ethylene Ripener/Ethephon. For that, it imports bulk quantities of that commodity from China and repacks the same in smaller packings. At present, the petitioner imported 23 metric tons Ethylene Ripener/Ethephon 20%, in bags weighing 25 Kgs. Each, against Invoice dated 18.05.2021. Those, goods were shipped from China on 24.05.2021 and arrived at I.C.D. Dadri against Bill of Entry bearing No. 4477470 dated 28.06.2021. There is no dispute about the computation of custom duty and its payment thereof. In the meanwhile, on 24.06.2021, a team of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Noida conducted a search at the business premises of the petitioner at Khasra No. 1310, village, Kashi, Gagol Road, Meerut. Occasioned by the facts discovered during that search and on account of nature of goods being presently imported by the petitioner, first, the goods being imported i.e., 982 bags of Ethylene Ripener/Ethephon weighing 24.5 Metric Tons and finished goods Ethylene Ripener (Mango), 573 bags weighing 100 kgs and Ethylene Ripener (Banana), 57 bags weighing 250 Kg. were detained. At that stage, the petitioner filed its reply to the detention memo being reply dated 01.07.2021. While that reply was pending, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to assail the Detention Memo as also search and seizure operation. During the pendency of the writ petition, seizure order dated 23.07.2021 came to be passed. That has been annexed to the Amendment Application (allowed earlier). Thus, the entire quantity of goods detained have been seized under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). At present, the petitioner has also been issued a Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Act dated 21.12.2021. Confiscation proceedings are pending.

4. First it may be noted, upon urgency pressed, the matter was fixed for a final hearing, today. Since, the issue of validity of the search was involved, we put a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if he would be pressing that challenge raised as it would entail summoning of the original records before any firm conclusion may be drawn as to existence or otherwise of any ‘reason to believe’ to justify the authorization for the search. Due to the urgency, learned counsel for the petitioner stated, the challenge to the search is not being pressed as that would involve further delay in adjudication of the dispute pertaining to seizure. Accordingly, prayer no. C and D of the writ petition are not pressed, at this stage, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to raise appropriate grounds of challenge (as may otherwise be available), in the statutory proceedings.

5. As to the detention and seizure, first it